David Kappos overhauled the USPTO to deal with patent backlog.

Share this story

The director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), David Kappos, announced Monday that he will step down from his post in January. President Barack Obama has not named a successor.

Kappos was serving as the top patent attorney for IBM when Pres. Obama asked him to take over the USPTO in 2009. When he arrived, the University of California Berkeley alumnus inherited a patent system in crisis. The USPTO was facing a growing backlog of pending patent applications—and the volume of patent litigation was increasing rapidly in the IT sector.

The patent veteran was a key figure behind the passage of the America Invents Act, last year's overhaul of the patent system. The AIA made some key procedural changes to patent law, most notably a switch from the first-to-invent rule the United States has used for two centuries to a first-to-file rule that was more common elsewhere in the world.

The AIA also provided Kappos with more resources to pursue one of his key priorities: hiring more patent examiners to deal with the backlog of pending patent applications. These efforts bore fruit, as the number of pending applications fell steadily during his term.

But the AIA did not include the kind of fundamental changes that reformers say will be needed to bring the litigation explosion under control. Indeed, for most of his term, Kappos stayed mum about hot-button issues such as the patentability of software, focusing instead on procedural reforms such as hiring examiners and instituting a new "post-grant review" process for issued patents.

Last week, perhaps anticipating that his imminent departure would make it easier for him to speak his mind, Kappos made it clear that he was first and foremost a defender of the status quo. In an address at the Center for American Progress, Kappos called the American patent system "the envy of the world," and told the system's critics to "give it a rest already."

"The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation," Kappos argued last week. "It's natural and reasonable that innovators would seek to protect their breakthroughs using the patent system."

The question remains: will Pres. Obama name a more reform-minded successor? We here at Ars are not going to hold our breaths. The Obama Administration has demonstrated little interest in serious patent reform, and USPTO directors tend to be patent system insiders. You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

80 Reader Comments

In an address at the Center for American Progress, Kappos called the American patent system "the envy of the world," and told the system's critics to "give it a rest already."

Expediting patent approval at the expense of quality control isn't acceptable. Why should we give it a rest when the changes ushered in have created an explosion of very obvious patent trolls, all suing over the most ridiculous patents? Patent trolling is now safer than being a company that actually makes a tangible product. One can't be sued for devices they don't make. So, how does that environment foster innovation?

Good riddance. I won't hold my breath expecting someone who will tackle wholesale reform, but we can at least hope for someone who isn't so condescendingly dismissive of software patent criticism. The statements he made last week were breathtakingly clueless.

Great he went ahead and improved the bureaucracy at the USPTO! So a broken system is running faster processing patents that should never be given in a more rapid way, perfect. God bless the bureaucrats and their red tape rubber stamping ways.

The envy of the world? The US patent system is moderately effective as an immigration-control policydissuading independent engineers and scientists from coming to the USA! I would be reluctant to move to the USA because of your crazy patent laws. The only people outside the USA who envy this madness are the patent lawyers who control ipo.gov.uk

It's a general tax on beneficial economic activity. As a software engineer and software service provider, I'm thinking of generally charging extra to my US customers to cover the inordinate risk of patent litigation.

Well, Obama filled the Copyright Justice League with RIAA attorneys so why would we expect better for patents.

Personally I love the fact that a lot of this hings on some idiot judge thinking that a different program on the same computer is like having a different circuit. No, dufus! It is like a building with the light switches set differently. Let's patent that!

EU make every possible move to BLOCK them. (Even though European Patent Office grant them, but its not EU institution).

And there is strong opposition from software industry in Europe against them.

But he is BLIND by his own choosing.

Btw. Why choose patent attorney from BIGGEST computer company out there with BIGGEST patent portfolio. And OLDEST opinion of using them to BLOCK competition.

Why not choose some patent attorney who actually help STARTUPs or small INVENTORS? They usually have something to do about actual INNOVATION and are too small/young to use patents as anti-competetive weapon.

If our patent system was the envy of the world, then why did you change it to reflect the rest of the world? Falling in line with global governance? At least, thank God lawyers will continue to have jobs!

I don't think software patents need be banned to bring the patent system under control. It's too late for that anyway. The most practical solution would be to clarify or redefine the inventive-step or obviousness criteria to take into account that most software patents are rather inevitable than revolutionary. That way patent trolling would be greatly reduced, patent law would be much tighter and will still abide by the TRIPS agreement (which the US is of course encouraging every other country to do). Specialist patent courts rather than jury trials would help a lot too.

I don't think software patents need be banned to bring the patent system under control. It's too late for that anyway. The most practical solution would be to clarify or redefine the inventive-step or obviousness criteria to take into account that most software patents are rather inevitable than revolutionary. That way patent trolling would be greatly reduced, patent law would be much tighter and will still abide by the TRIPS agreement (which the US is of course encouraging every other country to do). Specialist patent courts rather than jury trials would help a lot too.

It's not too late at all. Software patents are all math, and math has never been patentable. That a few judges have misunderstood that doesn't change that fact.

Also, I don't see abiding by TRIPS as a good thing. We should allow countries to set their own laws with no conditions other than reciprocity. Trade sanctions and such undermine national sovereignty and let the bullies win.

I assume when he said "envy of the world" he meant to switch the word "envy" for "laughing stock"; when you can guarantee victory by filing for infringement in the most sympathetic/lazy/witless state you please then there's not so much envy as there is utter disbelief.

It seems like half of the stories on Arstechnica these days are about suits for patents that are so broad they never should have been granted, and yet are costing companies millions of dollars and steadily stifling innovation as it is impossible for smaller companies to perform all the checks necessary to ensure their piece of basic programming doesn't infringe on some idiots patent for "anything written in a programming language" or something equally absurd.

So if this guy is defending the status quo then regardless of what good things he did introduce, I'm glad he's gone as there's a chance of some real change, which I seem to recall Obama being all about. I'm really dubious about the switch from first to invent to first to file personally as it only serves to belittle smaller businesses yet again; the whole point of the supposed "American Dream" is starting small and working your way to the top, but that's difficult when only big companies can afford to make money.

They ALL patented their computers. They all demanded licenses or refused to license.

They are GONE now, even though SOME OF THEM WHERE BETTER THAN PC.

IBM biggest invention "PC" architecture is CASE STUDY on why Patents are NOT NEEDED for innovation.

IBM had plenty of patents covering *their implementation* of the PC and made plenty of money licensing them to clone makers.

EDIT:

It's also worth noting that back in the day, two or more companies could come up with the same idea and implement it differently and that was ok. If the patent system back then was anything like what it is today, we wouldn't be enjoying ubiquitous computing.

They ALL patented their computers. They all demanded licenses or refused to license.

They are GONE now, even though SOME OF THEM WHERE BETTER THAN PC.

IBM biggest invention "PC" architecture is CASE STUDY on why Patents are NOT NEEDED for innovation.

There were PCs before IBM came out with a product line, and there were other companies that had product lines, IBM was just able to scale their operation and made good business deals.

You clearly are either very young and don't know what actually happen 30 years ago or know nothing about computers in general. IBM likely did patent the microprocesser instruction set they released. They are other instruction sets, and some were actually BETTER then IBM product but failed to make good business decisions.

I should point out...IBM and Apple are one of the few of the old boys still around. Apple and IBM have lots of patents to protect what they invented, sadly they also have tons of software patents, that protect stuff they implemented. Why do you write like a 5 year old makes 5 word statements, futuremore, why did you make a second post to add onto your original post. Its likely because its typical troll behavior.

There were PCs before IBM came out with a product line, and there were other companies that had product lines, IBM was just able to scale their operation and made good business deals.

You clearly are either very young and don't know what actually happen 30 years ago or know nothing about computers in general. IBM likely did patent the microprocesser instruction set they released. They are other instruction sets, and some were actually BETTER then IBM product but failed to make good business decisions.

IBM's PC's were very expensive considering the HW configurations. What they had going for them were (IMO) the timing and the "professional business" look and feel. High quality keyboard. Metal case and the IBM name. The name was, at that time, more or less synonymous with business computing needs. The saying back then "Nobody get fired from buying IBM [machiens]". It was a safe, traditional approach.

IBM did not invent the Microprocessor for the IBM PC. Intel did as they marketed the 8088 CPU, IBM based their design on. And yes, there were better CPU's at the time. The Motorola 68000 comes to mind.

You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

Interesting system you have in the US - the people who are guaranteed always to make money for patent disputes, decides who gets to sit in the PTO? If Obama wanted to appoint a patent critical professor, they could block him?

You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

Interesting system you have in the US - the people who are guaranteed always to make money for patent disputes, decides who gets to sit in the PTO? If Obama wanted to appoint a patent critical professor, they could block him?

The question remains: will Pres. Obama name a more reform-minded successor? We here at Ars are not going to hold our breaths. The Obama Administration has demonstrated little interest in serious patent reform, and USPTO directors tend to be patent system insiders. You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

This is fact-free, stupid and lazy journalism.

Kappos' predecessor as head of the USPTO was a man with little prior patent experience named Jon Dudas. I don't think it's unfair to claim that he was not universally loved by the patent bar, and yet he held the post from 2004-2009. The director before him also lacked much in the way of patent experience.

And you know what? The patent bar did just fine for themselves in those years.

I know it's easy to take potshots at lawyers, but the truth is that patent agents and attorneys would much prefer a well-functioning patent system. It doesn't much matter if you allow software patents or not, so long as the rules are clear and the process works as intended.

Edited to add: it's worth noting that the USPTO Director doesn't decide whether to allow software patents or not. That role is fulfilled by Congress and the Courts. Criticism of a bureaucratic chief for his personal views on the matter is somewhat irrelevant. His job is to ensure the USPTO serves to carry out its legal mandate.

You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

Interesting system you have in the US - the people who are guaranteed always to make money for patent disputes, decides who gets to sit in the PTO? If Obama wanted to appoint a patent critical professor, they could block him?

IBM is generally an excellent company that does a lot of good in the world (just consider their massive program of supporting employees in taking paid time off IBM work to do charitable projects — it's comparable to Google's 20%-time but more charity-focused; and I've seen first-hand some of the benefits of that work) — it's just that their policy toward software patents is misguided.

belboz wrote:

The saying back then "Nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM".

— People are still saying this today — it's almost an axiom of purchasing. As an independent consultant, I'm sick of being told this to my face by purchasing "specialists" who have no technical qualifications (usually, just a few hours prior "training" in commissioning IT systems). I've seen small-to-medium-sized businesses where the purchasers said these exact words, afterward hire big software companies that then locked them into an unsuitable IT system, effectively holding them over a barrel and stripping them bare with exorbitant fees that gouged a good fraction of their company's profits, for questionable returns. I haven't seen IBM doing this — I've just seen ignorant purchasers applying this ignorant axiom to other wealthy suppliers, effectively pretending that it's a net benefit to their company when a supplier rips them off because the exorbitant fees mean the supplier is likely to continue in business! We must all be vigilant against this kind of nonsensical back-to-front thinking. It's a real problem. Likewise, we must actively fight against an entrenched system where market incumbents resistant to disruptive start-ups (those companies that have been enriched by the existing state of affairs) are the only companies that can afford to pay the lawyers, so that the patent system is generally used to block "disruptive" innovation more than to support it (its purported benefit).

We need to be a bit careful of over-generalizations because IBM is a truly innovative company — innovation is the basis of almost their entire business. Only, they've misguidedly supported a cancerous creeping invasion of the patent system into the general ecosystem of engineering that supports their work. IBM is effectively feeding the crocodiles on this question.

I heard that a Hoover executive said of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, that his company should have purchased the idea/design and crushed it so that it would never have seen the light of day! Unfortunately this attitude represents the main sickness of our current market. We all need to work together against this threat...

Kappos opened his mouth. It confirmed he is an idiot. He's now "resigning." Such is D.C.; as long as you keep your mouth shut and do nothing to confirm suspicion that you're an idiot you can skate along until retirement (or a new administration of a different color).

This means we shouldn't expect to see any real press releases from the incoming PTO chief. Obama may have political debts to pay, but you have to remember that a lot of those debts reside in Silicon Valley. It's really a roll of the dice as to which sort of policy a PTO chief is going to set depending on which interest group they belong to; companies like Apple and IBM prefer the current patent system. It's familiar, exploitable, and broken in their favor. Companies like Google and Microsoft (ironically) have been pushing for patent reform because the patent system has affected their bottom line for supercilious reasons (based on patents of a similar nature) for the last decade or two.

Apple used to talk about how Microsoft patented everything; this is a smokescreen. Microsoft protected as much of its IP as it could, but many other, smaller companies actually owned the patents on a lot of Microsoft's offerings. But Microsoft had managed to secure the most valuable patents, leveraging those for favorable deals with those smaller companies. It also used its market leader (heh) position to set most favored nation agreements that were basically criminal, as attested to by the eventual anti-trust litigation.

Google is an interesting edge case because they didn't patent a whole lot of what they worked on and then watched other entities essentially shoulder-up on their work and patent it. They responded by buying up some key patent portfolios to stop the bleeding. Their end goal, particularly with Page at the helm, is likely an abolition of software patents in the abstract.

oh wait, you mean to say that replacement is patented already? Something about a method for displaying textual symbolic expression translation represented in plain text across a network media with the ability for asynchronous multiple client access?? %&$#!

(even ignoring the ridiculousness of the broader software patent method, it's utterly disgusting how much shit gets patented that is trivially obvious, especially when considering that the patent is basically for simply running software methods which essentially already exist, just for targeting a different platform, like a "smartphone")

The question remains: will Pres. Obama name a more reform-minded successor? We here at Ars are not going to hold our breaths. The Obama Administration has demonstrated little interest in serious patent reform, and USPTO directors tend to be patent system insiders. You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

This is fact-free, stupid and lazy journalism.

Kappos' predecessor as head of the USPTO was a man with little prior patent experience named Jon Dudas. I don't think it's unfair to claim that he was not universally loved by the patent bar, and yet he held the post from 2004-2009. The director before him also lacked much in the way of patent experience.

And you know what? The patent bar did just fine for themselves in those years.

I know it's easy to take potshots at lawyers, but the truth is that patent agents and attorneys would much prefer a well-functioning patent system. It doesn't much matter if you allow software patents or not, so long as the rules are clear and the process works as intended.

Edited to add: it's worth noting that the USPTO Director doesn't decide whether to allow software patents or not. That role is fulfilled by Congress and the Courts. Criticism of a bureaucratic chief for his personal views on the matter is somewhat irrelevant. His job is to ensure the USPTO serves to carry out its legal mandate.

Wikipedia:

"Prior to joining the Bush Administration, Dudas served six years as Counsel to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, and Staff Director and Deputy General Counsel for the House Committee on the Judiciary, where he guided enactment of major patent, trademark and copyright policy, including the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He was also instrumental in the passage of the 1996 Trademark Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, a law making it more difficult for seized counterfeit merchandise to re-enter the consumer marketplace."

Dudas didn't spend decades practicing patent law the way Kappos did, but I think it's fair to describe a lawyer who helped write patent reform legislation as a "patent system insider." Dudas's predecessor, James Rogan, was a lawyer and a member of Congress who served on the IP subcommittee. The guy before Rogan was a practicing patent lawyer. The guy before that was, like Dudas, a lawyer who helped Congress draft changes to patent law.

It's true that USPTO head isn't primarily an administrative job rather than a policy-making one. However, Kappos did play a key role in lobbying for the AIA, and the USPTO also advises the Solicitor General when patent issues come before the Supreme Court. If Obama had appointed someone with a more reformist bent, he could have used those opportunities to push for more substantial reforms to patent law.

Ars always writes about patent reform, but what exactly is that? One aspect I get from reading Ars articles since Ars started in 1998 is Software should not be patentable. But how exactly does that solve the problem? All patent attorneys will do is argue that whatever they are patenting is not software. See Gottschalk v. Benson

Thus a ban on software patents will not stem the tide of software patents. Attorneys will simply argue they are patenting a machine that happens to use a specific algorithm, effectively patenting software. See Diamond v. Diehr.

Ars points to Europe as a model for a ban on software patents. But the fact is, computer software gets patented in Europe all the time. IBM being one of the beneficiaries of that, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_1173/97. Attorneys simply argue around the ban on software patents.

In short, what does a ban on software patents effectively do for the US patent system? My original question still remains, what does "patent reform" look like to Ars?

The question remains: will Pres. Obama name a more reform-minded successor? We here at Ars are not going to hold our breaths. The Obama Administration has demonstrated little interest in serious patent reform, and USPTO directors tend to be patent system insiders. You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

This is fact-free, stupid and lazy journalism.

It's fine to disagree with the author and point out things you think are errors, but show some class. Calling the author stupid and lazy is uncalled for. This isn't youtube.

The question remains: will Pres. Obama name a more reform-minded successor? We here at Ars are not going to hold our breaths. The Obama Administration has demonstrated little interest in serious patent reform, and USPTO directors tend to be patent system insiders. You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

This is fact-free, stupid and lazy journalism.

Kappos' predecessor as head of the USPTO was a man with little prior patent experience named Jon Dudas. I don't think it's unfair to claim that he was not universally loved by the patent bar, and yet he held the post from 2004-2009. The director before him also lacked much in the way of patent experience.

And you know what? The patent bar did just fine for themselves in those years.

I know it's easy to take potshots at lawyers, but the truth is that patent agents and attorneys would much prefer a well-functioning patent system. It doesn't much matter if you allow software patents or not, so long as the rules are clear and the process works as intended.

Edited to add: it's worth noting that the USPTO Director doesn't decide whether to allow software patents or not. That role is fulfilled by Congress and the Courts. Criticism of a bureaucratic chief for his personal views on the matter is somewhat irrelevant. His job is to ensure the USPTO serves to carry out its legal mandate.

Your edited portion is what the people on this board don't get -- the USPTO director (or any director at any federal agency) has a legal framework that he needs to work within. Laws are passed by Congress. Those laws are interpreted by judges. Those laws are carried out by administrators like Kappos. The USPTO in no way has the power to say whether an entire type of technology is patentable. They examine applications and use the laws passed by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary to determine if something is patentable. And to think he has any control over patent litigation is just plain laughable.

I really respect the people that write on this board and so I find it very surprising how uninformed most are with not only the patent system but the US legal system as a whole. Kappos in no way has the power to shape patent litigation or legislation related to litigation. I'm not sure how people can blame him for any shortcomings in the AIA. I'm sure Congress used him as a resource to draft the legislation. But does anyone seriously think Kappos has any influence over politicians on Capitol Hill?

I really respect the people that write on this board and so I find it very surprising how uninformed most are with not only the patent system but the US legal system as a whole. Kappos in no way has the power to shape patent litigation or legislation related to litigation. I'm not sure how people can blame him for any shortcomings in the AIA. I'm sure Congress used him as a resource to draft the legislation. But does anyone seriously think Kappos has any influence over politicians on Capitol Hill?

Of course he has influence over the AIA. As the head of the USPTO, members of Congress will naturally look to him for advice on patent reform. More importantly, he has the ear of the president, who made patent reform a legislative priority, has the power to veto legislation he doesn't like, and has significant influence over Democrats in Congress.

No single person can dictate to Congress was legislation to pass, but he probably had as much influence over the final shape of the AIA as anyone in Washington.

Ars always writes about patent reform, but what exactly is that? One aspect I get from reading Ars articles since Ars started in 1998 is Software should not be patentable. But how exactly does that solve the problem? All patent attorneys will do is argue that whatever they are patenting is not software. See Gottschalk v. Benson

Thus a ban on software patents will not stem the tide of software patents. Attorneys will simply argue they are patenting a machine that happens to use a specific algorithm, effectively patenting software. See Diamond v. Diehr.

Ars points to Europe as a model for a ban on software patents. But the fact is, computer software gets patented in Europe all the time. IBM being one of the beneficiaries of that, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_1173/97. Attorneys simply argue around the ban on software patents.

In short, what does a ban on software patents effectively do for the US patent system? My original question still remains, what does "patent reform" look like to Ars?

We're a news site, not a lobbying organization, so we don't have an "official" list of legislative changes we'd like to see. But for example, the EFF site https://defendinnovation.org/ has some examples of reforms I think would make a difference. A loser-pays rule to deter patent trolls. Limitations on damages so that plaintiffs can't get hundreds of millions in royalties for a single patent that accounts for a small fraction of the value of a product.

I'd also like to see Congress take jurisdiction over patent appeals away from the Federal Circuit, which has proven itself to be extremely biased against patent holders.

If you look through our archives, you'll see we've written about these issues in considerable detail.

The question remains: will Pres. Obama name a more reform-minded successor? We here at Ars are not going to hold our breaths. The Obama Administration has demonstrated little interest in serious patent reform, and USPTO directors tend to be patent system insiders. You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

This is fact-free, stupid and lazy journalism.

Kappos' predecessor as head of the USPTO was a man with little prior patent experience named Jon Dudas. I don't think it's unfair to claim that he was not universally loved by the patent bar, and yet he held the post from 2004-2009. The director before him also lacked much in the way of patent experience.

And you know what? The patent bar did just fine for themselves in those years.

I know it's easy to take potshots at lawyers, but the truth is that patent agents and attorneys would much prefer a well-functioning patent system. It doesn't much matter if you allow software patents or not, so long as the rules are clear and the process works as intended.

Edited to add: it's worth noting that the USPTO Director doesn't decide whether to allow software patents or not. That role is fulfilled by Congress and the Courts. Criticism of a bureaucratic chief for his personal views on the matter is somewhat irrelevant. His job is to ensure the USPTO serves to carry out its legal mandate.

Wikipedia:

"Prior to joining the Bush Administration, Dudas served six years as Counsel to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, and Staff Director and Deputy General Counsel for the House Committee on the Judiciary, where he guided enactment of major patent, trademark and copyright policy, including the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He was also instrumental in the passage of the 1996 Trademark Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, a law making it more difficult for seized counterfeit merchandise to re-enter the consumer marketplace."

Dudas didn't spend decades practicing patent law the way Kappos did, but I think it's fair to describe a lawyer who helped write patent reform legislation as a "patent system insider." Dudas's predecessor, James Rogan, was a lawyer and a member of Congress who served on the IP subcommittee. The guy before Rogan was a practicing patent lawyer. The guy before that was, like Dudas, a lawyer who helped Congress draft changes to patent law.

Before his employment with the House of Representatives, Dudas practiced law in Chicago, focusing his practice on litigation with an emphasis on copyright and trademark issues.

By your definition, anyone who's ever worked in the IP field is a "patent insider". I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Quote:

It's true that USPTO head isn't primarily an administrative job rather than a policy-making one. However, Kappos did play a key role in lobbying for the AIA, and the USPTO also advises the Solicitor General when patent issues come before the Supreme Court. If Obama had appointed someone with a more reformist bent, he could have used those opportunities to push for more substantial reforms to patent law.

I get that you are disappointed that he didn't lobby for more significant change. Practically though, if he had lobbied for that change, it's very likely we would have wound up without any reform at all. The system we had was dysfunctional and Kappos targeted achievable reforms that go a long way toward fixing underlying structural problems with the USPTO (funding being a big one, but also practical procedural reforms that will greatly limit the cost and extent of patent litigation in the federal courts).

Leaving all the above aside, my real complaint was with the implication in your last paragraph that members of the USPTO administration enjoy a self-serving, cozy relationship with the patent bar. It's a gratuitous cheap shot, and unfounded.

The question remains: will Pres. Obama name a more reform-minded successor? We here at Ars are not going to hold our breaths. The Obama Administration has demonstrated little interest in serious patent reform, and USPTO directors tend to be patent system insiders. You don't become the head of the nation's patent office without broad support among patent attorneys. Plus, whatever else you might say about our current litigant-friendly laws, they have been lucrative for the patent bar.

This is fact-free, stupid and lazy journalism.

It's fine to disagree with the author and point out things you think are errors, but show some class. Calling the author stupid and lazy is uncalled for. This isn't youtube.

I didn't call Mr. Lee stupid or lazy. I took issue with the last paragraph of his article, which I maintain exhibits poor journalism.

Ars always writes about patent reform, but what exactly is that? One aspect I get from reading Ars articles since Ars started in 1998 is Software should not be patentable. But how exactly does that solve the problem? All patent attorneys will do is argue that whatever they are patenting is not software. See Gottschalk v. Benson

Thus a ban on software patents will not stem the tide of software patents. Attorneys will simply argue they are patenting a machine that happens to use a specific algorithm, effectively patenting software. See Diamond v. Diehr.

Ars points to Europe as a model for a ban on software patents. But the fact is, computer software gets patented in Europe all the time. IBM being one of the beneficiaries of that, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_1173/97. Attorneys simply argue around the ban on software patents.

In short, what does a ban on software patents effectively do for the US patent system? My original question still remains, what does "patent reform" look like to Ars?

To my understanding, implementations of an idea are patentable, while an idea itself is not. The intent being to provide the public with all necessary details and knowledge to reconstruct an invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the sale of said invention.

Today's software patents generally do not do this. Instead they attempt to describe an idea in legalese, which may or may not have actually been implemented. They provide no assistance whatsoever in constructing the purported invention, and are often so broad as to cover all possible implementations of an idea.

I know the "software is math" folks will disagree with me on this, but the solution is clear--if you want a software patent, provide the code that implements your invention. If someone can create the same feature through non-equivalent code, your patent doesn't apply to them. If you don't have code to submit with your application, you don't have a patentable invention.